Comcast Gigabit Upgrade Plan Sheds Light on Network Economics

Comcast’s plan to offer all its consumer customers gigabit speeds over hybrid fiber coax networks has strategic implications for cable operators, compared to most telcos and other independent Internet service providers using either fiber to neighborhood or fiber to home networks.

At the risk of seeming overly bearish about prospects for fixed network telcos, consider one key difference between the hybrid fiber and copper networks used by both telcos and cable companies, in recent decades.

Assuming a typical 500-home serving area from a single optical node, Comcast uses a fiber to neighborhood design that is structurally similar to the fiber to neighborhood design favored by AT&T, for example.

A typical fiber to the node architecture might have a single optical node serving a “few hundred” homes, making it roughly comparable to Comcast’s access network, in terms of use of optical fiber for transport and then copper for distribution to customer locations.

The difference in end user capacity is related to the differences between coaxial cable and twisted pair copper in terms of bandwidth, plus the difference between cable “broadband” and telco “baseband” modulation methods.

The differences are huge, allowing Comcast to upgrade with slight, if any changes, to the distribution plant, and upgrading to a gigabit by switching to new modems. A telco fiber to neighborhood network cannot upgrade that much by switching out customer premises gear.

So cable has a clear advantage, in terms of scaling investment to reach higher bandwidth.

Of course, the alternative is to replace the hybrid network with an all-fiber approach. Comcast itself has chosen to do so for about 85 percent of its customers who might prefer to buy a symmetrical 2 Gbps connection instead of 1 Gbps.

Verizon Communications, where it has installed FiOS, could, in principle, upgrade to a gigabit by swapping CPE and some optical node elements. Verizon has not said it will do so, but could, as market needs require.

As always, the business model is decisive. Verizon has to weigh the additional capital investment with the expected financial return. Verizon business planners might be seeing a tough case for such an upgrade, much as Verizon and others have struggled historically with the business case for fiber to the home, as well.

Popular posts from this blog

You can see where this is going. Younger users text more than they talk, and though today's users 25 and above still talk more than they text, the usage pattern is uniform: younger age cohorts text more than older age cohorts.

So as each age cohort advances, one might predict that texting behavior will grow over time. How much it grows is the only real question.

Users 18 or younger actually"talk" about as much as users 55 to 64. One suspects an awful lot of "voice" activity is of the coordination and collaboration sort, so that younger and mid-life workers might be in work groups that require more coordination than workers 55 to 64.

By now, telecom executives are well aware of the “disruption” market strategy, whereby new entrants do not so much try and “take market share” as they attempt to literally destroy existing markets and recreate them. Skype and VoIP provider one example. The “Free” services run by Illiad provide other examples. Most recently, we have seen Reliance Jio disrupting the economics of the mobile market in India, offering free voice in a market where voice drives service provider revenues. “Free” is a difficult price point in most markets. But free voice forever is among the pricing and packaging foundations for Reliance Jio’s fierce attack on India’s mobile market structure. “Free voice” does not only lead to Jio taking market share, but reshapes the market, destroying the foundation of its competitor business models. At the same time, Jio hopes to become the leader in the new market, driven by mobile data, with far-higher usage and subscribership, and vastly-lower prices. source: GSMADisruption…

“Take the package” (early retirement) quipped Tony Mosley, Ocean Specialists director of business development, after a review of major trends in the global telecom business at the latest PTC Academy program in Bangkok, Thailand.

Mosley's playful retort came just before students developed a list of key challenges they would face as new CEOs of their own retail businesses.

The work teams came up with a list of six major issues they would have to confront: Margin compression Regulation Over the top services Differentiation Spectrum Convergence As part of the three-day program, students (mid-career telecom professionals) are exposed to the business challenges leaders of businesses confront, and how they work to overcome those obstacles.

As always is the case, there was debate about whether it is possible to “move up the stack,” adding value and perhaps occupying new niches in the business ecosystem, to boost revenue and raise margins. At the concluding session, students were immersed in thinking…

Gary Kim has been a communications industry analyst and journalist for more than 25 years, and currently works mostly as a content developer (marketing copy, white papers, applied research, conference and blog content).

He speaks often at industry events, has written one book and a half dozen major market studies and 14,000 articles.

His work is noted for its examination of business model issues, especially wireless and mobile.

He recently founded the Spectrum Futures conference for the Pacific Telecommunications Council.

He was cited as a global "Power Mobile Influencer" by Forbes; ranked second in the world for strategic coverage of the mobile business.

He is a member of Mensa, the international organization for people with IQs in the top 2 percent.